SEA 1000: French bid to make Australia submarines fades on US security fears

Gestart door Zeewier, 09/02/2016 | 22:04 uur

Zeewier

Koude Oorlog verhalen ophalen, altijd mooi.

French Barracuda submarine: the most complex artefact in Australia

Brendan Nicholson
Defence Editor Canberra

By the end of last year the French were convinced they had made a breakthrough in the race to win Australia's $50 billion submarine contract.

Over a series of meetings in Paris, L'Orient, Cherbourg and Adelaide, engineers from the French naval shipbuilder DCNS shared with Australian naval officers secret data on their submarine's acoustic signature.

The French Barracuda submarine, with its pump jet propulsion system, matches other conventional submarines' noise emissions at very low cruising speeds under 5 knots.

But the data showed that when the Barracuda accelerated, as any submarine must do when pursuing an enemy or evading an attacker, the French design was significantly quieter than rivals.

The French declared that they were willing to share all of their cutting-edge technology and they felt then that they had surprised and impressed the Australians.

And so it proved. Led by veteran submariner Greg Sammut, considered one of the ADF's smartest and most diligent officers, the Royal Australian Navy's evaluation team was very conscious that in the hunter-killer deadly game of undersea warfare, a quiet submarine wins while a noisy submarine dies.

Yesterday the Australian government publicly announced what the French government had long hoped for: Paris-based industrial group DCNS, expert in naval defence, had won the unpredecentedly large contract to build the Navy's 12 new submarines. These 4500-tonne conventionally powered subs will be versions of DCNS's 4700-tonne nuclear-powered Barracuda submarine. The new subs will be named the Shortfin Barracuda, after a predatory fish found in Australian waters.

On completion, as DCNS puts it, the Shortfin Barracuda Block 1A "will be the most technically complex artefact in Australia".

The French company won the $50bn project ahead of Japan and Germany. It follows comprehensive briefings on the options over the past 10 days to the National Security Committee of Malcolm Turnbull's cabinet by Rear Admiral Sammut.

NSC progressively evaluating the designs, production plans, schedule, cost and other factors. The NSC recommendation went to the full cabinet and Turnbull flew quickly to Adelaide to announce the result.

Japan's government, in partnership with a consortium headed by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, had offered an evolved version of its 4000-tonne Soryu-class sub, lengthened by 6m-8m to provide space for additional fuel and batteries to increase its range and for roomier crew accommodation.

German company TKMS offered a 4000-tonne submarine of a new design, using technology tested in its 2000-tonne boats. With that came a promise of something of an industrial revolution, a new digital manufacturing model for the nation introduced on the back of the submarine project.

The vast scale of the project, even by international standards, was reflected in the extent of the French delight after Malcolm Turnbull telephoned his French counterpart, Francois Hollande, to tell him the very good news.

A less pleasant task for the Prime Minister was to explain to our close ally, Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe the reasons for the decision. The Japanese believe they were blindsided because of their strong expectation, built up under former prime minister Tony Abbott's leadership, that they would be the chosen ones. But the then prime minister was forced to open the process to international competition after a rebellion by South Australian Coalition MPs who feared the prospect of submarines built in Japan would cost several of them their seats.

That group was likely to include high-profile frontbencher Christopher Pyne, who became Industry Minister under Malcolm Turnbull, and who will have a key role in what will be a construction program on a massive scale.

While South Australian politicians were smiling with success, the Japanese Prime Minister was not so lucky. Abe had a lot at stake, after investing considerable domestic personal political capital persuading Japan's parliament to change its interpretation of its pacifist constitution to allow the export of military hardware. That was done in large part to accommodate Australia.

Apart from the importance of the contract to its shipbuilding industry, the Abe government sees the submarine contract as a cornerstone of a much closer security relationship with Australia in the face of Japan's ongoing tensions with China in the South China Sea.

All of the submarines will be built in Adelaide, though the construction model favoured by DCNS was for the first of the submarines to be built at its yard in Cherbourg in France with half of the workforce to come from Australia. To significantly reduce risk, the Australians would learn on the job in France and then bring their skills home to train others in Adelaide. In the meantime a new construction plant would be built at the ASC facility in Adelaide in time for work to begin on submarine number two. During the selection process, the French said that would sped up delivery of the first submarine.

There are sound strategic reasons to build the submarines in Australia. One of the world's most experienced builders of both surface warships and submarines, Herve Guillou, global chairman and chief executive of DCNS, told The Australian the new submarines must be built in Australia to ensure they can be maintained and modernised here.

Guillou says the submarines were a vital strategic asset and the nation needed full sovereignty over them. "If Australia wants to maintain its sovereignty, at the end of the day we have to build in Australia. There was no way Australia should need to rely for 50 years on another nation to maintain its submarines," he says

"After 10 years, you have to upgrade things as technology improves to keep up your regional superiority. To upgrade a submarine you need not only a database and a supply chain, you also need engineering know-how and know-why."

So, given the massive expense of this project, does Australia really need to spend $50bn on a new submarine fleet?

France's shipbuilding industry provides a very good example of very close ties to that nation's global naval operations.

When French special forces were assigned to recapture a West African oil rig from pirates three years ago, they parachuted into the ocean and were picked up by one of France's small Rubis-Class nuclear-powered submarines. Through the submarine's periscope, the French soldiers watched their targets for days while assessing the best moment to strike. Then they emerged from the torpedo tubes and swam through darkness to climb aboard and launch their attacks with complete surprise.

The French navy will not say more about these operations, but the details it has released reveal some of the options the submarine force offers.

The Rubis submarines have monitored fighting in Syria and Libya, bringing home film of explosions and tracer lighting up the night in a fierce battle near the coast.

France is replacing its 2000-tonne Rubis boats with its new nuclear-powered Barracuda attack submarines. In recent months the French navy quietly stationed a submarine to protect its aircraft carrier, Charles de Gaulle, while it operated in the Persian Gulf two months ago launching air raids on Syria.

In the same way, the Royal Australian Navy will use its submarines to protect its giant new landing ships, which can each carry 1000 fully equipped troops, if they are sent to a war zone.

Little is being said publicly about where they fit into Australia's strategic picture, but a great deal is going on below the surface.

Australian submarines have travelled far up into East Asia to gather intelligence about military movements there.

The Navy's new boats will be able to fire cruise missiles through their torpedo tubes and they will have, by any conventional submarine standards, a colossal range that will take them far up into the disputed waters of the East and South China Seas.

Australia's submarine operations are cloaked in secrecy but some clues about the roles of the Navy's current and new submarines in an uncertain future can be gained from the extraordinary secret operations of the Oberon boats during the Cold War.

The Australian has revealed that in 1985, HMAS Orion entered Cam Ranh Bay in Vietnam, the Soviet Union's largest naval base outside the USSR. Prime minister Bob Hawke was later shown brilliantly clear footage of a Soviet Charlie Class nuclear submarine Orion was tailing. Unseen but just metres behind the Soviet submarine, Orion's crew was able to get remarkable pictures of sonar and other fittings along its hull.

On another occasion and in response to an American request, HMAS Orion waited, submerged, outside Cam Ranh Bay and this time tailed a Soviet Kirov-Class nuclear powered cruiser, monitoring its communications.

A similar operation inside the Chinese port of Shanghai in late 1992 nearly went disastrously wrong. HMAS Orion became caught in fishing nets. After a fisherman used an axe to cut his boat free, the Australian submarine was able to escape into the open ocean.

Years later, more top secret patrols were carried out by Australian submarines to gather intelligence about Indonesia military operations around East Timor.

When our Shortfin Barracuda boats are launched, Australia will be more able to keep pace with other powers active in the region.

China is building a mixed fleet of up to 80 conventional and nuclear-powered submarines. They will include both conventional and nuclear attack submarines designed to destroy other submarines and surface ships, and nuclear submarines armed with ballistic missiles, probably with nuclear warheads and able to threaten targets far away.

The Russian Federation is revamping its still-formidable submarine capability. It has about 12 nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines, 25 nuclear attack submarines and about 20 conventional Kilo and Lada class boats. It is building new generations of each which are likely to be very capable.

The US is the most capable operator of submarines around the world and operates an all-nuclear fleet, including 14 nuclear ballistic missile submarines, four converted guided missile submarines and 55 attack submarines. About two thirds of these boats fall under Pacific Command.

Even the US cannot match these submarine numbers on its own but it wants allies such as Australia to operate strong undersea forces to complement its own force.

Japan has a formidable fleet of 17 large stealthy and sophisticated conventionally powered submarines and it is increasing that to 22.

South Korea has a very competent submarine force of nine Chang Bogo conventionally powered attack submarines derived from the German Type 209. It is building nine more modern German Type 214 and will have 18 modern boats before the end of the decade. It is planning to design and build additional boats of its own.

Singapore has a small but sophisticated conventionally powered submarine force with four very capable Swedish-made Sjoormen Class and two newer Archer class boats. Two German Type 218 submarines are due in 2020. Its crews are well trained and its undersea arm is considered very capable.

Taiwan has just two 1980s-vintage Dutch submarines but wants at least eight more modern boats.

Australia and Japan have both used submarines to help the US build up a pattern of Chinese submarine movements and a library of sound "signatures" to help identify the rapidly growing number of Chinese boats when they are encountered in future.

Australian, Japanese and US submarines could well find themselves monitoring Chinese naval activity off the submarine base on Hainan Island — or off a North Korean port.

North Korea's determination to build a hydrogen bomb small enough to fit it to a missile that can be carried by a submarine is adding to fears in Tokyo, Washington and Canberra. Though that is a long way from fruition, the prospect of a nuclear-armed North Korean submarine turning up far from its unpredictable homeland at some time in the future is a possibility that has to be planned for.

And the best way to destroy a submarine is with a better submarine.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/french-barracuda-submarine-the-most-complex-artefact-in-australia/news-story/6fcfe2d0e1c5f68b17e5df4b18501a7d

Lex

Citaat van: Zeewier op 26/04/2016 | 12:51 uur
Voor Sea 1000 is een apart topic. Opgezet om het Walrus-topic schoon te houden.
De berichten zijn overgeheveld naar dit topic.

Lex
Algehaal beheerder

Ace1

Citaat van: Oorlogsvis op 26/04/2016 | 14:31 uur
Het totale programma gaat tussen de 35 en 50 miljard dollar kosten voor 12 subs ?...en wij willen er voor 2.5 miljard 4 Walrus vervangers.
Het lijkt of de bedragen veel te hoog zijn het zou betekenen dat iedere subs die de Australiers gaan kopen minimaal 3 miljard dollar gaat kosten dit is toch veel te duur ??

zelfs bij een koers van eur/aussiedollar van 1.46 praat je nog over minimaal 2.3 miljard per sub

De kosten vallen in Australie hoger uit omdat men deze werkzaamheden door civiele scheepswerven laat doen en men geen DMO ontwerpafdeling heeft die de ontwerpen zelf maakt.
En een deel van de kosten men maakt bv in Frankrijk onderdelen maakt die naar Australie vervoerd moeten worden, als een land nu een ontwerp en de bouw van een onderzeeer zelf doet is men veel goedkooper uit.
De bouw van de Walrus klasse was ook een stuk goedkoper dan de bouw van de Collinsklasse, dat had er ook mee te maken dat er tijdens de bouw van de Collinsklasse dingen verkeerd zijn gegaan en die moesten hersteld worden.

jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)

Citaat van: Oorlogsvis op 26/04/2016 | 14:31 uur
Het totale programma gaat tussen de 35 en 50 miljard dollar kosten voor 12 subs ?...en wij willen er voor 2.5 miljard 4 Walrus vervangers.
Het lijkt of de bedragen veel te hoog zijn het zou betekenen dat iedere subs die de Australiers gaan kopen minimaal 3 miljard dollar gaat kosten dit is toch veel te duur ??

zelfs bij een koers van eur/aussiedollar van 1.46 praat je nog over minimaal 2.3 miljard per sub

Het genoemde getal van 34 mjd euro is m.i. het budget het over het gehele programma, een periode van meer dan 50 jaar. De aanschaf zal vermoedelijk ongeveer 1/3 van het totaal zijn.

Oorlogsvis

Het totale programma gaat tussen de 35 en 50 miljard dollar kosten voor 12 subs ?...en wij willen er voor 2.5 miljard 4 Walrus vervangers.
Het lijkt of de bedragen veel te hoog zijn het zou betekenen dat iedere subs die de Australiers gaan kopen minimaal 3 miljard dollar gaat kosten dit is toch veel te duur ??

zelfs bij een koers van eur/aussiedollar van 1.46 praat je nog over minimaal 2.3 miljard per sub

Zeewier

Citaat van: Thomasen op 26/04/2016 | 12:55 uur
Uiteindelijk is natuurlijk de missie wat bepaald welke voortstuwing nodig is. De Soryu, Kilo en Yuan klasse zijn natuurlijk ook niet nucleair, maar vraag me toch af of bij schepen van dit formaat er daadwerkelijk voldoende vermogen is. Nog los van de noodzaak om te snuiveren, of een complexe AIP bij te vullen.

De Fransen hadden in hun Rubis klasse, die ongeveer even groot is als de Walrus, ook gewoon een reactor.
De Franse onderzeeboten zijn er op gemaakt escorte aan de oppervlaktevloot te leveren. Dat vergt hogere snelheden en pumpjet voortstuwing. Onze onderzeeboten zijn wel oceangoing maar typeren zich meer als lone wolves, echt SSK hunter-killer optreden.

Zeewier

Ik denk dat de Fransen gewonnen hebben puur omdat ze de meeste kennis van scheepsbouw willen delen met het Australische ASC. En daarmee dus feitelijk de meeste Australische werkgelegenheid bieden naast de technologie en technische assistentie. Waarbij DCNS de technologie levert die ze zelf niet homemade kunnen maken. Een zelfde situatie als Damen en Saab, maar dan op een veel grotere industriële schaal.

Vanuit defensie-industriële machtsbalans ben ik tevreden dan TKMS juist niet de totale commerciële onderzeebootbouw in handen heeft gekregen. Dat de innovatie in technologie te zeer naar één partij trekt (zie Lockheed-Martin in de VS). Voor het Japanse conglomeraat Mitsubishi Heavy Industries is het wel zuur, had hun ook wel een overzees succes gegund.

Zeewier

Voor Sea 1000 is een apart topic. Opgezet om het Walrus-topic schoon te houden.

jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)


Sparkplug

Het is wel en niet verrassend dat Australië een Frans product kiest. Al sinds de Mirage III heeft elk van de Australische krijgsmachtdelen weleens iets van Franse afkomst gebruikt.
A fighter without a gun . . . is like an airplane without a wing.

-- Brigadier General Robin Olds, USAF.

Harald

Wel een voortstrevend ontwerp met geen schroef maar waterjet.
Ben benieuwd..... vooral bij de contractvorming !
Hopelijk voor Australië wordt het geen proces zoal bij de Rafaledeal in India.

Mourning

Ja... lol.. sorry ik gun het de Fransozen natuurlijk van harte, want onderdeel van de EU (en dus de defensieindustrie in de EU), maar ik wordt altijd een beetje zenuwachtig als m.n. een Franse kandidaat pardoes, bijna uit het niets (ik gaf de Japanners en Duitsers veruit de meeste kansen), een materiaal competitie ergens wint. Het land heeft nogal een geschiedenis op dat vlak (evenals een aantal andere grotere producenten, eerlijk is eerlijk)  ;D
"The only thing necessary for Evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"- Edmund Burke
"War is the continuation of politics by all other means", Carl von Clausewitz, Vom Kriege/On War (1830).

jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)

Franse scheepswerf wint megacontract Australische onderzeeboten

Bericht geplaatst: 26-04-2016 | Laatst aangepast: 26-04-2016

Vanochtend is na jaren van competitie bekend gemaakt dat de Franse scheepswerf DCNS de nieuwe Australische onderzeeboten mag gaan bouwen. De opdracht heeft een waarde van 34 miljard euro.

http://marineschepen.nl/nieuws/Franse-werf-DCNS-wint-megacontract-Australische-onderzeeboten-260416.html#.Vx8myr8LRtQ.twitter

jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)

Citaat van: Harald op 26/04/2016 | 10:29 uur
Dat klopt, maar dan had ik verwacht dat de Duitsers het zouden winnen van de Fransen.
Maar aan de andere kant, de Fransen hebben hun Scorpion boten wel verkocht aan India, Maleisië.

:cute-smile: Ik ging ook uit van een Duitse overwinning... foutje.

Harald

Citaat van: jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter) op 26/04/2016 | 10:13 uur
De Japanner lag om diverse technische redenen al enige tijd uit de gratie.
Dat klopt, maar dan had ik verwacht dat de Duitsers het zouden winnen van de Fransen.
Maar aan de andere kant, de Fransen hebben hun Scorpion boten wel verkocht aan India, Maleisië.